With Kobe retiring...

[Eric15]

It begs the question, what players in NBA history have had a greater career than him?

Here's the way I see it...

MJ and Kareem (clearly above Kobe)

Magic, Russell, Lebron (just a shade above Kobe in my opinion, I'm projecting a bit with Lebron, I assume he'll get another ring and/or MVP award)

Kobe

Wilt, Bird, Oscar, Shaq (rounding out Top 10 all-time)

 

[iommi]

I'd put put Bird and Oscar ahead of him but good post.

Also, not to get off track, but the timing of Kobe's retirement is great synergy: Black Mamba retires and Kid Mamba Tyus Battle gets ready to strike at Syracuse the following year.

 

[Cusefan0307]

He's not as sexy of a pick, but I think Tim Duncan has had a better career than Shaq. He has more win shares per minutes played. The only thing Shaq really did better than Duncan is score. I also wonder if Julius Erving would be remembered differently had he played his entire career in the NBA and not spent his prime in the ABA.

 

[iommi]

He's not as s e xy of a pick, but I think Tim Duncan has had a better career than Shaq. He has more win shares per minutes played. The only thing Shaq really did better than Duncan is score. I also wonder if Julius Erving would be remembered differently had he played his entire career in the NBA and not spent his prime in the ABA.

Dr. J wasn't a great outside shooter but your point about the ABA is excellent. Dr. J would get my vote for Most Exciting or at the very least top 3 Most Exciting ever.

 

[Eric15]

He's not as s e xy of a pick, but I think Tim Duncan has had a better career than Shaq. He has more win shares per minutes played. The only thing Shaq really did better than Duncan is score. I also wonder if Julius Erving would be remembered differently had he played his entire career in the NBA and not spent his prime in the ABA.

I went back and forth with either Duncan or Shaq in the Top 10 -- I definitely don't disagree with putting Duncan there. Basically, Duncan was never as dominant a player as Shaq was from roughly 1999-2003, but Shaq wasn't as good for nearly as long as Duncan was/is.

 

[Knicks411]

I think you have to have Duncan on the list ahead of both Kobe and Shaq. He's still going strong.

As a rookie in 98, Duncan averaged 19-11-2.3 blocks per 36 minutes. When the Spurs won the title in 2014, as a 37 year old, he averaged 19-12-2.3 per 36. Granted the FG% was down (55% as a rookie, 49% in 2014) but the 55% as a rookie was kind of a fluke for him, he was closer to 50% the next few years. The guy is a machine.

Magic is great, he's got 5 rings, but he was, for better or worse, done by like age 32, and played with a guy you have in the top 2 of all time for most of his career. I think once you get past MJ and Kareem, it's kind of hard to convince me anyone has had a better career than Duncan.

 

[Alsacs]

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Lebron
6. Bird
7. Duncan
8. Wilt
9. Oscar
10. Kobe

 

[MikeSU02]

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Lebron
6. Bird
7. Duncan
8. Wilt
9. Oscar
10. Kobe

I think this is close to where I would land as well.

At best, I would put Kobe 8th. But I think 8-10 is a good landing spot. The only other person that could be up there would maybe be West.

 

[Knicks411]

I'm not saying I would have Duncan #3 btw, but then again, I'm not saying I'm not. If you throw Lebron out, since he's still playing and adding to his legacy, I dunno, I can pretty easily see myself putting Duncan over Bird and Magic. Additionally, I wonder if we should ding those guys more for being relatively poor defenders too.

 

[Eric15]

I can pretty easily see myself putting Duncan over Bird

Maybe a year or two ago I started a thread asking who has had a better career... Duncan or Bird, and many posters wouldn't even consider the idea that Duncan had a better career.

 

[Knicks411]

Maybe a year or two ago I started a thread asking who has had a better career... Duncan or Bird, and many posters wouldn't even consider the idea that Duncan had a better career.

I don't know if it's just mythologizing guys that played back in the day or what. Duncan has played 33% more minutes in his career than Bird did.

Bird was obviously incredible, and I'm not saying there's not an argument, but to say there's no way Duncan has had a better career, I just can't see it. The argument for Bird has to be a peak one; at his best I can see the argument that he's a better player than Duncan. But Duncan at his peak was freaking incredible too, and he made first team all NBA teams 15 years apart. Career value, Duncan has to be way over Bird.

 

[MCC]

I concur with Jordan, Kareem as 1 and 2.

Duncan above Bird - not by much, but based on (a) overarching 'career' value as Knicks411 says above, and (2) defensive prowess. I also think some value has to be assigned for his presence as a stabilizing 'agent' for the Spurs over time, helping to attract other key players, etc.

WRT Shaq's dominance (especially in a few Finals series), Duncan ran up 24 / 17 / 5blk in 2005 and 27 / 14 / 2.2blk in 2003 - not quite on Shaq's level but awfully good nonetheless.

(Shaq was a monster in the Finals... goodness.)

 

[Briancuse]

1.Mj
2.Russell
3. Wilt
4.Oscar
5.Duncan
6.Possibly Lebron, lets see how the rest of his career pans out.

 

[OrangeDW]

He's not as s e xy of a pick, but I think Tim Duncan has had a better career than Shaq. He has more win shares per minutes played. The only thing Shaq really did better than Duncan is score. I also wonder if Julius Erving would be remembered differently had he played his entire career in the NBA and not spent his prime in the ABA.

The thing is, Shaq at his absolute peak ate Duncan for lunch a few times in the playoffs. Duncan's career accomplishments might be slightly better, but Shaq had a higher peak.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Wilt has to be top 10. Only the great Celtic team's kept him from multiple championships. Led league in scoring, rebounding and assists in different reasons.

 

[br801]

Wilt has to be top 10. Only the great Celtic team's kept him from multiple championships. Led league in scoring, rebounding and assists in different reasons.

I must be getting old when I see a thread where Wilt is being treated as an afterthought by many in a discussion of the all-time greats.

 

[Melancer46]

Is this about who had the more accomplished career (played longer, more titles, etc.) or ranking the best of all-time? I think that's two different arguments, but either way, I'd put Duncan over Kobe and Shaq. To me, Duncan was the best player from his era (just before LeBron's era). Kobe would probably be around #10 on my list all-time.

 

[br801]

He's not as s e xy of a pick, but I think Tim Duncan has had a better career than Shaq. He has more win shares per minutes played. The only thing Shaq really did better than Duncan is score. I also wonder if Julius Erving would be remembered differently had he played his entire career in the NBA and not spent his prime in the ABA.

For those of us who saw Erving play, his ABA years in no way diminish how we view him. The quality of play in that league, especially by the early 1970s, was quite high. The top teams, if they had been able to compete fully intact, would have done quite nicely against the better NBA clubs of that era, IMO.

 

[Knicks411]

The thing is, Shaq at his absolute peak ate Duncan for lunch a few times in the playoffs. Duncan's career accomplishments might be slightly better, but Shaq had a higher peak.

Shaq at his peak was basically unstoppable. But in 03, which is pretty much Shaq in his peak (unless it's just 00-02), Spurs beat the Lakers in 6 and Duncan had a 28-12-5 in the series.

If I'm trying to win a playoff series tomorrow, and I know I can have both guys at their peak, I'd take Shaq. But if I'm drafting players careers ahead of time, knowing how they're going to play (but not necessarily how the team will do, if that makes sense) I take Duncan because he's been great for like 18 years.

 

[MikeSU02]

Shaq at his peak was basically unstoppable. But in 03, which is pretty much Shaq in his peak (unless it's just 00-02), Spurs beat the Lakers in 6 and Duncan had a 28-12-5 in the series.

If I'm trying to win a playoff series tomorrow, and I know I can have both guys at their peak, I'd take Shaq. But if I'm drafting players careers ahead of time, knowing how they're going to play (but not necessarily how the team will do, if that makes sense) I take Duncan because he's been great for like 18 years.

It's so tough to balance this.

Think about if it's just absolute apex - where would you put Walton?

At his apex, he was a monster, but it was SO short.

 

[Melancer46]

It's so tough to balance this.

Think about if it's just absolute apex - where would you put Walton?

At his apex, he was a monster, but it was SO short.

Same with a guy like Tracy McGrady; there's a lot of examples of guys that were incredible at their peak but flamed out pretty quickly for one reason or another.

 

[MikeSU02]

Same with a guy like Tracy McGrady; there's a lot of examples of guys that were incredible at their peak but flamed out pretty quickly for one reason or another.

Good example. Loved peak McGrady.

You can put a whole team together of basically shooting stars that had incredible peaks that were short.

 

[Knicks411]

Agreed, and in debates like this I tend to favor longevity. (Definitely in baseball, basketball is a little different because one individual player can make such a huge difference, but still)

To me, Walton just doesn't have long enough of a peak. Maybe I'm not being fair, but also, it's clear the guy was just never going to be able to hold up to the rigors of an 82 game season.

Btw, has anyone read breaks of the game?

 

[UnknownOrange]

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Lebron
6. Bird
7. Duncan
8. Wilt
9. Oscar
10. Kobe

Bill Russell over Kareem? Meh. I'm always a huge skeptic of Bill Russell. I know he was great but he has his era in part to thank to his greatness. Also think of the playoff structure. Best team in the east? You get a bye and then boom, ECF then Finals. Not saying that he wasn't great, just an easier time to be great. Imagine Shaq being on a team in the 50's and 60's. Just food for thought. He is still top 5 all time to me, but he had the easiest path to the top 5 IMO

 

[Alsacs]

Bill Russell over Kareem? Meh. I'm always a huge skeptic of Bill Russell. I know he was great but he has his era in part to thank to his greatness. Also think of the playoff structure. Best team in the east? You get a bye and then boom, ECF then Finals. Not saying that he wasn't great, just an easier time to be great. Imagine Shaq being on a team in the 50's and 60's. Just food for thought. He is still top 5 all time to me, but he had the easiest path to the top 5 IMO

11 rings including the last 2 as player/coach. Russell clearly knew when to retire as Kareem was getting ready to be drafted.
I just give those 11 rings respect to put him 2nd. He dominated Wilt in their Era. Wilt only won 1 title while Russel was in the league and those Warriors/Lakers he was on were stacked as well as the Celtics.

Russell was 1 inch short than Kevin Durant is now but his D dominated that era. Shaq and Wilt had similar careers. The refs allowed them to be played different than everyone else and neither guy got everything they could out of their talent. Wilt stayed in better shape but both choked before winning 2 titles for Wilt and 4 for Shaq.

I just put Russell ahead of Kareem for winning. Kareem was probably the better player if I could pick them in their primes.